Guest eureka Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 How could Canada end up as Brazil, Argentine, or Cuba. Those countries all have strong governments; Canada does not, and, given Harper's revealed intentions towards government, it will have no central government. In other words, Canada will cease to exist. BTW, this thread has given me an idea on how to ensure that the "Conservative" who won a narrow victory in this riding last time will be back at his old job in February. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 How could Canada end up as Brazil, Argentine, or Cuba. Those countries all have strong governments; Canada does not, and, given Harper's revealed intentions towards government, it will have no central government.In other words, Canada will cease to exist. BTW, this thread has given me an idea on how to ensure that the "Conservative" who won a narrow victory in this riding last time will be back at his old job in February. The Conservatives support a renewed take on federalism, which, as we currently see, sucks. I support a strong government with social programs. Paul Martin does not and while Harper doesn't either, he offers a renewed relationship with the provinces and he, unlike Martin's crony Liberals, doesn't lie about it either... :angry: I want to see Harper win because I want to give him the chance to improve our great country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society... It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff. Now that's scary.... Not to people who care about freedom. I have a deep and abiding interest in the protection of personal freedoms. So-called human rights commissions have no such interest. Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society... It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff. Now that's scary.... Scary? I think it's worth thinking about. Are there situations where our society puts limitations on freedoms in the name of political correctness? I think you could probably make a case that in some cases, yes we do. I don't see this comment as being out of line at all. I think it's something we as a society should always be mindful of. Harper's statement that they're an attack on our "fundamental freedoms"... I wonder what kinds of freedoms... the right to bash homos and blacks.... The freedom to stop girls from getting abortions ??? How about freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Freedom of association? These are all basic human rights which have been consistently attacked by so-called human rights agencies. I don't quite see the problem here... Harper went to a right-wing conference. So? I have no doubt at one time or another Layton has gone to some socialist conference, and Martin has been to a billionaires conference. What is the big deal? The only scary politician in Canada is Layton and his treatment of the middle class, but Harper and Martin are actually personally quite alike -- except that Martin is 100x richer. And this is the fundemental mistake being made, this isn't a "right-wing conference", this is a group of sociopaths. Oh brother... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society... It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff. Now that's scary.... Not to people who care about freedom. I have a deep and abiding interest in the protection of personal freedoms. So-called human rights commissions have no such interest. Wow.... Your logic is astounding.... But I suppose that you are a white "Christian" male, and giving rights to the "inferior ethnic minorities" and homosexuals, and "welfare bums" takes away your right to abuse them, take advantage of them, and exploit them.. It would appear that your "deep and abiding interest in the protection of personal freedoms" applies primarily to white, English speaking heterosexual "Christians" like yourself.... Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society... It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff. Now that's scary.... Scary? I think it's worth thinking about. Are there situations where our society puts limitations on freedoms in the name of political correctness? I think you could probably make a case that in some cases, yes we do. I don't see this comment as being out of line at all. I think it's something we as a society should always be mindful of. Harper's statement that they're an attack on our "fundamental freedoms"... I wonder what kinds of freedoms... the right to bash homos and blacks.... The freedom to stop girls from getting abortions ??? How about freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Freedom of association? These are all basic human rights which have been consistently attacked by so-called human rights agencies. Freedom of speech... verbal abuse of particular groups is ok.... Should we not protect against good conservative-voting white english speaking Christian males like Ernst Zundell ?? Maybe you should give some good examples...I can't wait for them... Like the anti-seat-belt arguments about drowning in a car because the seatbelt is on... So bring on the examples .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River_God Posted January 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 "A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." -Dwight D. Eisenhower Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin Oh boy, I could swear he's talking about the Liberals! What are you talking about Betsy? The conservative drivel on this thread is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society... It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff Stephen Harper said this? This man is a visionary. Especially if he was referring to the very "legitimate" human rights commissions issued by the United Nations, headed by Iran, Syria, and Libya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society... It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff Stephen Harper said this? This man is a visionary. Especially if he was referring to the very "legitimate" human rights commissions issued by the United Nations, headed by Iran, Syria, and Libya. You got it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Not to people who care about freedom. I have a deep and abiding interest in the protection of personal freedoms. So-called human rights commissions have no such interest. Wow.... Your logic is astounding.... But I suppose that you are a white "Christian" male, and giving rights to the "inferior ethnic minorities" and homosexuals, and "welfare bums" takes away your right to abuse them, take advantage of them, and exploit them.. Pedantic drivel. Ignorant, unthinking, rabid ravings that barely merit any kind of reply. How about freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Freedom of association? These are all basic human rights which have been consistently attacked by so-called human rights agencies. Freedom of speech... verbal abuse of particular groups is ok.... Should we not protect against good conservative-voting white english speaking Christian males like Ernst Zundell ?? Maybe you should give some good examples... Old Ernst is actually a perfect example of the stupidity and myopia of those who support human rights measures. Ernst was a nobody with no influence, a joke that people laughed at. His rambling rants were taken even less seriously than yours. By comparison, Chretien seem like a brilliant speaker. But the idiotic anti-free speech laws made him a marty, made him famous nationwide, gave him a huge platform from which to recruit. Nothing was more helpful to him. Anti-free speech laws do not deter racism. In fact, nowhere in the world are the politically correct thought police more prevelent than in Europe, with stringent laws against offending any minorities for any reason, and very stringently enforced. You can go to jail for saying anything which can be construed as offensive against minorities in Europe, and people do. And nowhere are hate groups stronger. Anti-Semitism grows every year, with more violent incidents. Neo-nazi groups thrive, in comparison to here and in the United States. In Canada, despite the earnest, feverish efforts of the left, human rights laws have not gone as far as in Europe - yet. But they are always high on the list of the NDP and Liberals. We don't yet know how much damage their latest expansion of the laws will cause, the one which included homosexuals. Will priests be dragged out of churches and thrown into jail for quoting the bible? Will synagogues and temples be closed down by the thought police? Will antipathy towards homosexuals grow? Stay tuned. Any law which damages basic human rights in order to appease those who simply do not wish to be offended by the beliefs of others is asinine and ignorant, and only the asinine and ignorant support them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 What are you talking about Betsy? The conservative drivel on this thread is ridiculous. ...and when it comes to drivel, you're the leading authority. A number of responses have been posted, and you haven't responded to any of them. Freedom of speech... verbal abuse of particular groups is ok.... Should we not protect against good conservative-voting white english speaking Christian males like Ernst Zundell ?? Maybe you should give some good examples...I can't wait for them... Like the anti-seat-belt arguments about drowning in a car because the seatbelt is on... So bring on the examples .... One could look at well-publicized incidents surrounding "human rights" complaints against groups like the Elks or rec hockey leagues for excluding women. One could look at Scott Brockie, the Christian printer that was sued for refusing to print gay and lesbian pamphets, or Chris Kempling, the teacher who was suspended from his job for writing letters to the editor critical of homosexual lifestyles. One can look at how police forces and news outlets have been cowered from discussing any issue of race for fear of offense. That's good, right? It's bad when people talk about race, right? Except when the Toronto Star wanted to examine racial profiling a couple of years ago, there weren't any statistics, because the police had been discouraged from keeping statistics about race. One can look at Caribbean gang problems in Toronto or aboriginal gang problems on the prairies that have been allowed to fester and grow for years in complete silence because people have been so scared of causing offense that legitimate discussion of social problems has been stifled. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 By the way neo-conservative and neo-fascist are two words for the same thing.[/color][/size] Kind of like "River God" and "Mindless Idiot". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Oh boy, I could swear he's talking about the Liberals! What are you talking about Betsy? The conservative drivel on this thread is ridiculous. So's the Liberal drivel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River_God Posted January 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 By the way neo-conservative and neo-fascist are two words for the same thing.[/color][/size] Kind of like "River God" and "Mindless Idiot". Fanatical right wing + billions in corporate welfare for military contractors + limits on free speech and free press = neo-fascism aka the dark side of neo-conservatism The American neo-conservative movement has clearly become unbalanced when media giants like FOX NEWS label the biggest capitalists in the world as “left-wing” if they don’t pledge unquestioning blind allegiance to Cheney and Bush’s Administration. The American fanatical-right are trying to create a culture of double-think, where people who question the Iraq War are left-wing traitors who are endangering the troops. Stunningly, zealots who want to expand the crusade to Syria, Iran and Venezuela are supposedly keeping the troops safely out of harms way. ========================= Footnotes (1) It’s ironic that in his latest speech Bush called on Americans to make more sacrifices in the war on terror, while he and his friends seem to be getting rich off it. Note that Halliburton stock is up 300% since Iraq was invaded in March 2003. Cheney’s half million deferred stock options probably went up over 1000%. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=hal&t=5y&l...=l&q=c&p=&a=&c= Chevron is up 200% since March 2003. Does Rice have any options in Chevron? How about her friends. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CVX&t=5y&l=off&z=l&q=c&c= United Defense Industries went from $20 to $75 before being bought out. Nobody knows how Carlyle Corp is doing because it is private, but it is probably going through the roof. The Bush family has probably made tens of millions. How does this compare with the finances of the soldiers in Iraq? Many of them will barely be employable when they get back home. Deaths and injuries are growing in Iraq with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have also been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. (2005/11/18) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 River, Do you mind not making your font? This has nothing to do with politics but it makes it harder to read... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 By the way neo-conservative and neo-fascist are two words for the same thing.[/color][/size] Kind of like "River God" and "Mindless Idiot". [colo] There is a forum for U.S. issues and Iraq, so its off topic. Puuleeeze....whenever anyone trots out neo-con fascist etc. they lose credibility. The conservatives stand for more freedom and more freedom of speech, not less, you've got the wrong party. So quit with the histrionics and stick to debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 The American fanatical-right are trying to create a culture of double-think, where people who question the Iraq War are left-wing traitors who are endangering the troops. Stunningly, zealots who want to expand the crusade to Syria, Iran and Venezuela are supposedly keeping the troops safely out of harms way No, people are free to question the Iraq War. However, they're not free to undermine it, and when they do so, they're called on it. People like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Howard Dean may have the freedom to disparage the American troops and their mission, but it doesn't mean that there won't be negative consequences, like having to defend their ridiculous statements. And how noble of you to stick up for the vicious dictators of Syria, Iran and Venezuela. Typical liberal. However, you forgot to mention Hussein, Ill, and Castro. Next time, make sure you include all the left's friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River_God Posted January 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 The American fanatical-right are trying to create a culture of double-think, where people who question the Iraq War are left-wing traitors who are endangering the troops. Stunningly, zealots who want to expand the crusade to Syria, Iran and Venezuela are supposedly keeping the troops safely out of harms way People like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Howard Dean may have the freedom to disparage the American troops and their mission, but it doesn't mean that there won't be negative consequences, like having to defend their ridiculous statements. Shady (is that name for real?) You should add John Murtha to your list of traitors. http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles?id=n2...9990012&cid=771 Murtha Says Iraq 'Absolutely' Wrong War Reuters WASHINGTON (Jan. 3) - Rep. John Murtha, a key Democratic voice who favors pulling U.S. troops from Iraq, said in remarks airing on Monday that he would not join the U.S. military today. A decorated Vietnam combat veteran who retired as a colonel after 37 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, Murtha told ABC News' "Nightline" program that Iraq "absolutely" was a wrong war for President George W. Bush to have launched. American Patriots like Murtha are probably the only thing that will knock some sense into the recent US foreign policy. Hopefully he can prevent another disaster like Iraq. of course neocons like Richard Perle might be incensed by this proposition. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now. Key Neo-con pupeteer Richard Perle (self proclaimed Darth Vader and Prince of Darkness) Are you a Perle fan Shady? is that where your name comes from? Tom Clancy (hawkish master of such million-selling thrillers as "Patriot Games" and "The Hunt for Red October" ) recalled a prewar encounter in Washington during which he "almost came to blows" with Richard Perle. "Perle was saying how Colin L. Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said, 'Look ..., he's supposed to think that way!' And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 River,Do you mind not making your font? This has nothing to do with politics but it makes it harder to read... Why would that matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 River, Do you mind not making your font? This has nothing to do with politics but it makes it harder to read... Why would that matter? Because it is annoying to read... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River_God Posted January 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 River, Do you mind not making your font? This has nothing to do with politics but it makes it harder to read... Why would that matter? Because it is annoying to read... I'm glad you are at least reading my posts tml12. It would be nice if you stopped to think of them for a while before complaining about trivial things like the font. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 River, Do you mind not making your font? This has nothing to do with politics but it makes it harder to read... Why would that matter? Because it is annoying to read... I'm glad you are at least reading my posts tml12. It would be nice if you stopped to think of them for a while before complaining about trivial things like the font. I have thought of them, I am not a neo-con, the info is scary, etc. Tell me now why that should make me vote Liberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Freedom of speech... verbal abuse of particular groups is ok.... Should we not protect against good conservative-voting white english speaking Christian males like Ernst Zundell ?? Maybe you should give some good examples...I can't wait for them... Like the anti-seat-belt arguments about drowning in a car because the seatbelt is on... So bring on the examples .... One could look at well-publicized incidents surrounding "human rights" complaints against groups like the Elks or rec hockey leagues for excluding women. One could look at Scott Brockie, the Christian printer that was sued for refusing to print gay and lesbian pamphets, or Chris Kempling, the teacher who was suspended from his job for writing letters to the editor critical of homosexual lifestyles. Authority figures are and should be subject to scrutiny, and should conduct themselves appropriately for the office they hold. If you find it incorrect that this teacher was penalized for criticising homosexuals, then would you think it equally OK for him to be critical of the lifestyles of Jews or blacks.... One can look at Caribbean gang problems in Toronto or aboriginal gang problems on the prairies that have been allowed to fester and grow for years in complete silence because people have been so scared of causing offense that legitimate discussion of social problems has been stifled. Was it a "gang problem" ?? If so, what's wrong with discussing it.Just because some people abuse a valid and good system, doesn't mean that it should be discarded. For example, if sexual perverts are conducting themselves indecently in public washrooms, the solution isn't to ban public washrooms, but rather to find a better method of policing them.... If human rights commissions are being abused, this should be dealt with to make the system function as intended, rather than shutting it down.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Authority figures are and should be subject to scrutiny, and should conduct themselves appropriately for the office they hold. If you find it incorrect that this teacher was penalized for criticising homosexuals, then would you think it equally OK for him to be critical of the lifestyles of Jews or blacks.... Don't look now, but I don't think there's actually such thing as a "black lifestyle" or a "Jewish lifestyle". However, there are indeed significant numbers in the homosexual community that continue to lead a high-risk lifestyle which is known to lead to astronomical drug and disease statistics in the gay community. Is it hateful to acknowledge that there are problems? One can look at Caribbean gang problems in Toronto or aboriginal gang problems on the prairies that have been allowed to fester and grow for years in complete silence because people have been so scared of causing offense that legitimate discussion of social problems has been stifled. Was it a "gang problem" ?? If so, what's wrong with discussing it. I don't believe there's anything wrong with discussing it. However, I would point out that just because I feel that way doesn't mean it's feasible. In theory it would be easy for any offended minority to file a human rights complaint against any such discussion; as I understand it, they don't need to show that the statements are harmful or without merit... all they need to make a complaint, apparently, is to fire off a letter. People can suffer legal expenses and damage to their reputation as a result of complaints, even if the complaints are without merit. But more seriously for society at large, it is quite possible that merely the threat of complaint stifles discussion of relevant issues. Just because some people abuse a valid and good system, doesn't mean that it should be discarded. For example, if sexual perverts are conducting themselves indecently in public washrooms, the solution isn't to ban public washrooms, but rather to find a better method of policing them.... If human rights commissions are being abused, this should be dealt with to make the system function as intended, rather than shutting it down.... Sure. But now instead of dismissing the topic out of hand, you're discussing the topic, and even agreeing there's potential for abuse. It's not something to be dismissed out of hand. It could be quite important. As I said earlier, the possibility that "human rights" commissions could infringe on our constitutional freedoms is something we should be mindful of. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River_God Posted January 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 It could be quite important. As I said earlier, the possibility that "human rights" commissions could infringe on our constitutional freedoms is something we should be mindful of. -k Stephen Harper quote: Human rights commissions are an attack on our freedoms. It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff. Richard Perle quote: If we go forth, and wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us It is very scary that Harper, Conrad Black and Richard Perle are all in bed together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 River, Do you mind not making your font? This has nothing to do with politics but it makes it harder to read... Why would that matter? Because it is annoying to read... Why would you want to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River_God Posted January 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 River, Do you mind not making your font? This has nothing to do with politics but it makes it harder to read... Why would that matter? Because it is annoying to read... Why would you want to? Why would who want to do what Argus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.